Response to interpellation 2025/26:462 on tax on pesticides
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the tax on pesticides and whether disinfectants within healthcare and elderly care should be exempted. M argues that the current legislation is old, unclear, and functions poorly as a steering tool 1 2. M is open to changing the legislation to make it more accurate and effective 1 2. M admits that the issue has not been prioritized previously due to a high pace of reform but is prepared to act 2 3. M considers it unreasonable that these products are taxed and that the legislation needs to be changed 4. S considers that disinfectants for infection control should not be treated as other pesticides 5 6. S argues that the tax does not hit the mark and is ineffective 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Monica Haider has asked me if I intend to ensure that disinfectants used in health and social care are not taxed as pesticides. The interpellator has also asked me if I intend, in any other way within the scope of my area of responsibility, to act to remove any obstacles to the availability of these products.
Today, pesticides are taxed through the Act (1984:410) on Tax on Pesticides. In the Act, pesticides are defined as substances or preparations intended to be used for protection against property damage or nuisance to human health caused by plants, animals, bacteria, or viruses. The tax is levied on both plant protection products and biocides.
The order we have in Sweden is that the Riksdag decides on laws and that authorities and courts interpret and apply the legislation. What the government can do is propose changes to the legislation.
An investigation (SOU 2017:102) has previously stated that the tax on pesticides in its current form has flaws in its application and is not an effective steering instrument. The Government is therefore open to reviewing whether the tax can be redesigned to become more accurate and effective.
Regarding the question of other measures to remove any obstacles to access to disinfectants, I note that no such specific obstacles are stated.
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Elisabeth Svantesson! I note that the Minister for Finance, in her answer, says she is open to reviewing the tax, so that it can be made more efficient and accurate. That is good.
I have submitted this interpellation because there are uncertainties regarding the taxation of disinfectants used in healthcare and elderly care. The Act on Tax on Pesticides was introduced to regulate plant protection products and other products with environmental and health impacts. But through the broad design of the law, disinfectants used to protect patients, the elderly, and healthcare staff are also covered.
During the pandemic, we learned how crucial access to disinfectants is for infection control, patient safety, and the society's preparedness. Is it then reasonable that questions regarding these products should be treated in the same way as other pesticides?
The law already contains exceptions for products used in the production of food and pharmaceuticals. A corresponding clarification for disinfectants within health and social care would be both logical and easy to implement.
I note that the Minister for Finance refers to the fact that a government investigation has already concluded that the tax on pesticides in its current form has flaws and is not an effective steering instrument. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister for Finance: If the government itself considers that the tax has flaws and does not function particularly well as a steering instrument, why is the government then not prepared to already remove – and not just be open to doing so – the uncertainty surrounding disinfectants used in health and social care?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to Monica Haider for this question!
I will say it very straight and clearly: This tax works poorly and truly has its flaws.
It is good that this issue is being raised again. It is a very old piece of legislation that is not, so to speak, adapted to or interacts with permit regulations, for example, in this area. The law is also not clear, and it creates uncertainty and unwanted consequences.
At the same time, there is complex legislation surrounding this. Therefore, one should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If one simply abolishes the law or exempts just disinfectants without looking at the whole, there is a risk that there will be other negative consequences.
But having said that, this is an issue where I completely agree with the interpellator. That we have not prioritized it during these four years is because we have a high pace of reform. There are many things that need to be improved. One has to work step by step and reform by reform, so to speak. We simply have not prioritized just this issue. It has not been at the top of the priority list. But having said that, I am open to changing the legislation. I think it would be completely reasonable to do so because it actually has not led to what it should lead to. In a simpler way, one could perhaps say: It is an old piece of legislation for a completely new era.
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance devotes a large part of his answer to describing how the legislation works and how it is actually applied. We all know that, and we have talked about it here. But my question is not about who interprets it, but about the government's political will. Now we heard the Minister for Finance say that there is a political will to do something about this, but that it has not been at the top of the priority list. I really hope that it moves up on that list, so that this can actually be prioritized.
Does the Minister for Finance consider that the products used to prevent the spread of infection in healthcare and elderly care should be taxed as pesticides? The Minister for Finance herself was in there saying it is a matter of priorities. We must, of course, have effective instruments for the environment and health, but the products used to protect patients and the elderly should not fall under the same regulatory framework. I truly hope that the Minister for Finance, just as she says, is prepared to move from general openness to concrete action and to ensure that the disinfectants in healthcare and elderly care are not burdened by a tax that does not fulfill its purpose.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! The short answer to the question of whether I am prepared to do something is yes. It is also, of course, about who will be in charge at the Government Offices in the autumn. We have an election before then. But I can say: I think this is bad legislation that needs to be changed, and we should not wait for the next pandemic before we do it. I am prepared to do this. I assume that also Monica Haider's party, Socialdemokraterna, could imagine changing this if they, against all odds, were to win the election.
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! I truly believe that there will be another Finance Minister in the autumn, and then we will have to ensure that we change the tax on pesticides, so that it does not affect the activities that really need it here.
I am, of course, pleased that the Minister for Finance also says that one is prepared to do something about this.
I can really only thank you for the answer and state that we are actually in agreement on this issue. This tax does not hit the mark, and therefore it is not effective.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Monica Haider, for raising this issue!
There are many challenges to address. This is an important issue. It became very clear during the pandemic, as the interpellator also points out. We will definitely take that with us. I think this is unreasonable and that it needs to be changed.
I thank you for this interpellation and take the opportunity to wish a happy Midsummer, in case the interpellator will not be participating in any more debates.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.